theloniusfleabag

Dear Leafless, Let's see, #1...telling your children, and anyone else that will listen, that they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't worship how they've been told fits this description nicely. Don't forget, most of the world's 'christian' population were converted by conquest.#2, you seem to wish this 'elitist' society yourself, so that the law of the land is dictated by your beliefs, whether or not it is the majority. #3,...ever heard of 'papal infallability'? Millions flocking to Rome to hear a ninety year old mumble mass in Latin? #4, again, most of the world's populace funded (and joined) the church at some point in history through the sword. #5...what good does the church give to it's members by hoarding golden goblets and gilded columns? The 'church' in Rome is one of the few entities that has it's own 'secret service', protecting is ass(ets)...with billions in revenue and trillions in real estate, whom do they serve, god or mammon? Society and 'it's members' are merely the trough. As to the last bit, it is not 'extra attention' that is being demanded, but inclusion. That is, coming up from less to become equal, but you choose to see it as 'extra', because it is more than they presently have.

Dear crazymf, If Iraq were a stable democracy, the term 'Iraqis' might ring a bit truer. They remain bitterly divided, 3 ways, I might add, and the expediency of this trial does nothing to elevate Iraq's stability or legitimacy, at home or abroad.

Dear Riverwind, Not me. At least, he wasn't the worst, and his trial and punishment far exceed how other brutal dictators have been treated...the list is too long to put here. The peace of death, I suppose...as to peace in the country, I predict years of bloodshed. Which isn't much of a prediction, since it is the status quo today. Justice? Pffft. The trial was a farce from beginning to end. Saddam should have been tried in The Hague, and it should have included the chemical weapon attacks. Mind you, it should have also included members of the US administration who condoned, aided and abetted Saddam at the time.

Dear Leafless, We also support the cult of christianity, the cult of judaism, and the cult of big business. What choice to make? All, none or some?

Dear Liam, The problem is that there is often a double standard applied: when a Canadian wears a maple leaf, it is seen as a matter of national pride but when an American wears a baseball hat or Yankees tee shirt while in Europe he is seen as an Ugly American... As far as its making a difference between being the target of constant insults and having a good time... uh, don't you see a basic problem there? I mean, doesn't part of you think it's kind of unfair to begin with that, by your own statement, Americans run the risk of being the target of constant insults when they step outside the US? I should think that you should question "Why is this so?"

Dear Charles Anthony, Cogito ergo sum. Perhaps 'next to nothing', but not fully 'nothing'. Then I shall tell you. It is 'That which does be'. When people invented 'god', they gave him characteristics of 'truth', the most notable being the statement "I am'. This applies well to 'truth', but less so to 'god', for only 'God' requires faith. Truth does not require anything. It simply is, regardless of our interpretation, regardless of our wishes, regardless of our claims. While some humans may have high regard for 'truth', it cares not one jot or tittle for us.

I agree with most of this post, but why does the gov't not look at re-vamping the system? Come to think of it, perhaps I am glad they do not. We'd likely see a 1 billion dollar study done which said that it would cost too much to change things.

Dear Liam, Yes, the gov't could enact the 'notwithstanding clause', if they saw fit (or should I say, 'benefit'). However, it would be a bold move for a minority gov't. Indeed, here is the possibility of evil associated with radical state power. (As I understand it, Van Der Lubbe was beheaded, though I have also read he was hanged) Homosexuals, left-handed midgets, and Uigher Yak salesmen could bear the brunt of the intolerance those in power chose to eliminate as the 'escarpment sacrifice'...A sign at the camp could read..."Please remove shoes and hair before entering showers. Aslo, now is the time to repent'."

Dear Charles Anthony, The poor do not enjoy one ounce of the infinite betterment provided by our coercratic justice system. The 'poor' sure do. It is presently illegal to enslave them, eat them, rape them, kill them for sport...they are not required to pay for their own private police service to prevent these things, though they are poor.

Big deal. Why is that a problem? Whoooaaaaaaaa nelly. Ok, please say you are kidding me. Do you want to know the truth? I believe that what Charles Anthony is saying is that there is no obligation for the media to tell the truth, and the onus is on the individual regarding what to accept or deny as 'truth'. The same would apply for most of your hypothetical questions, that the individual is ultimately responsible for how one deals with 'lies'. Don't forget, he is a 'libertarian-anarchist' at heart, so the argument would run that the punishment for lying would be poor sales.

I believe that there is already a thread on this general topic, "Do leftists eventually turn right?". Do you mean 'Insolviet Union?

Dear Figleaf, Darwin usually weeds these guys out before they do too much harm. Yes, for the opposite of 'mistake' in this case would be 'malice'.

Dear Argus, If you read the huge list of UN documents, you will see that this is not exactly true.

Why on earth would I vote for a 'sixth party'? Might as well ask, "If you weren't married to your wife, who would you like to be married to?" -a buxom blonde with no limbs -a naughty, left-handed midget -an 80 yr old billion-heiress with a twitchy ticker -the 'Madame-Kahuna' of "Beaver Island" there are just too many more...

Dear myata, (I once owned a fantastic bicycle of that brand...) Atheism is a 'belief' of sorts, because you are accepting or professing one of the two answers to be the 'true' one. The highlighted bit above is referred to as 'empirical', ie: that which is learned or accepted as 'truth' through observation. The italicized bit from your post, or that which is 'the logical conclusion' is called 'a priori'. The problem with a priori 'knowledge of the existence of God' is that is based solely on the causal argument, which in turn relies on one big exception to the theory.

I have reported this thread to the moderator. Though I shouldn't deign to reply, the only response from the other posters in this thread should also have been... . Oddly, Leafless believes the context of the quote, rather than exonerating Rue through explaining the comment, instead finds it equally damning. Leafless, Where are the 'coloured people' going to go to 'assimilate' to your vision of aspects you consider imortant to Canada...to a body shop? (I actually am paraphrasing an old Mad Magazine comic I saw some 20-25 years ago...about 'white' being the only acceptable colour of attire on a tennis court...)

Dear kimmy, I think I figured out why, and oddly because of some stuff written in the 'atheist' thread. Humans are basically walking (albeit independently sentient) computers. We process, repeat and act upon only that which has been previously entered into our memory banks. I seek to control that which enters my memory, and I try to keep out that which I have deemed to have little or no value. A judgement call to be sure, but one I am happy with. I am free to fill my memory banks with re-runs of 'Gilligan's Island', but since I feel that society itself is stuck there, the key to escape cannot be found within it's comedic foibles, the answer must be sought elsewhere.

This is why I have nothing but disdain for 'weblogs', popular though they may be. Basically an online diary, yet there are those that quote them as 'news sources', etc. I wold say that this forum, taken in a 'roundtable discussion' sort of way, qualifies as a 'weblog'. Ergo, the participants would qualify as 'webloggers'.

Dear Betsy, I disagree, I would say that very few atheists, and even fewer agnostics, are are a product of atheist parents. Such a small percentage, in fact, that none are found here. Of those on this forum that claim to be atheists, none have said "My Parents raised me that way", virtually all of them have said that it was a product of critical thinking.God is much like Santa Claus in this way. You don't realize that the the common belief system of your peers is folly until you are old enough to examine the logical flaws yourself. Figleaf, I believe the classic 'triumvirate mantra' has 'omnipresence' rather than omnibenevolence.

I wasn't sure I should quote myself, (didn't want to be seen as 'cross-posting'), but something I posted elsewhere also fits here. from... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=166491 (don't know how to do the 'whizzy link thing' to hide this line of code behind words like some of the comupter litter-it here) God is in two of these three places. I contain the notion of god, (the chemical formula for which I have named, H2SOteric) and 'he' physically is in one of the other two. So do I simply choose the lesser of two evils and run with it? It matters not to me, and I would prefer not to have one or the other 'faiths' affect my decisions. I am comfortable with my agnosticism, for I cannot embrace atheism when I have not been to the place where the answer is, and returned with the correct empirical knowledge.

Dear Charles Anthony, From the Tom Waits song "Heartattack and Vine"... Usually 'evil' is that which opposes scripture, but for us secular types, it is that which is amoral. Black Dog, I agree, my agnosticism comes from my studies in philosophy and logic. As to this, however, I have to disagree. I logically don't know the answer, so it would be more of a 'cop-out' to simply pick one or the other and believe in it without proof. I simply admit that I don't know the answer, and either one is possible. In fact, to the question "Is there a god?" and of the answers 'yes or no', one of them must be true, but I don't know which one and don't really care.As Mr. Hardner states, . I would agree with that assessment. I would think that in some cases, it would be exactly true, but in others, such as kimmy and myself who loved our fathers, critical examination has led us to our beliefs, not Oedipal/Electral complexes or patricidal fantasy.Drea, I believe that this should read 'to knowledge' (if you mean empiricism).

Dear geoffrey, Often the first two beget the last one. Unless you brought rubbers.

Dear betsy, Since I am an agnostic, I view atheism and theism, or any kind of deism, as equal. They are a faith, a belief in an answer, one way or another. "Is there a god?" If you answer yes or no, you are are saying that you know the unknowable. While I don't doubt that certain traumatic experiences may lead one to the convictions of atheism, as per your articles, I say it is equally fallacious to give an unprovable answer either way.

That option already exists here, and all can easily (and have been thus far) placed in their respective slots, whether federal, provincial, American and even moral departments.

Dear Chuck U. Farlie, As kimmy states, I saw this very sign on a Burger King drive-thru window in Calgary about 3 weeks ago. There is also a Fried chicken place (Chicken-On-The-Way, been here since the 50's) that has a sign "Hiring $14/hr cook/cashier"Construction is booming and projects are behind for lack of labour. There is even an ugly rumour that some liquor stores in Calgary are short of stock because they can't find workers for the Edmonton distribution warehouse !!! My own business is doing record numbers, we have been established just over 10 yrs (wife and I owned it for the last 3) and we can hardly keep up, we are seriously looking to open a second location, but vacant space is rare as hen's teeth. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. Perhaps bring a motorhome with you.